Church

Brian McLaren: "Conversations on Being a Heretic"

by Gabe Lyons

Ever since Brian McLaren released his bestselling book, A Generous Orthodoxy, he has become a lightning rod of controversy. In response to this work, some felt McLaren was poised to become a contemporary reformer while others remarked that his beliefs were neither generous nor orthodox.

Brian has continued to develop his thinking since then, publishing numerous books with provocative titles such as The Secret Message of Jesus. With each new work, opposition among traditional evangelicals has mounted against his beliefs. But the dam seemed to break when his most recent book, A New Kind of Christianity, hit stores in February.

Theologian Scot McKnight, a self-described “friend and chronicler” of McLaren’s work, responded with a bold review in Christianity Today that attempted to separate this new kind of faith from historic orthodoxy. “Brian is not only poking evangelicals, he is also calling everything about Christian orthodoxy—from the ecumenical creeds through the Reformation and up to present-day evangelicalism—into question . . . I find little space in it for orthodoxy.” McKnight wrote.

Others have echoed McKnight’s sentiments. Trevin Wax, author of Holy Subversion, remarked, “McLaren’s proposal demonstrates the hypocrisy of liberalism.” Kevin DeYoung, author of Why We're Not Emergent, said the book was “two steps forward in terms of clarity and ten steps backward in terms of orthodoxy.”

To be fair, some Christians have warmed up to and even defended McLaren’s theological evolution as paving the way for the future of the Church. In 2005, TIME magazine named McLaren one of the “25 most influential evangelicals” in America. Still, the voices shouting “heresy” are undeniably loud.

At Q, we’ve never been satisfied with recycling caricatures. Or relying on second-hand opinions about Christianity or culture. So we decided to invite Brian out to our Q gathering in Chicago to give him a chance to speak for himself and respond to the naysayers. The video below is his interview with Scot McKnight on what McLaren believes and how he would respond to the dissenting voices who oppose his work.

We look forward to hearing what you think.

Q | Conversations on Being a Heretic from Q Ideas on Vimeo.

_______

What do you think about McLaren's work? In your opinion, does it pave the way forward or move us away from orthodoxy?

Comments

Troy Konicki

I agree with McLaren in that the focus should not be upon him and his personal salvation or thoughts about salvation. The focus should be on what he is saying. He's saying that we are unchristian in our stealing of Jesus' seat as Judge and our current "Us/Them" working paradigm. And, it's so true. In my opinion, this interview, the questions and the tone of it, are evidence of exactly what McLaren is saying (not that Q shouldn't have used the interview, I think it's helpful for us to see these things). The focus is not upon truth or love, growth or godliness. The focus is upon establishing Brian's status as "us" or "them."

What if Brian were an atheist? Would this change the truth of his claims? I feel as if we are so ready to talk about "common grace" and about the beauty of God's creation...but, when it really comes down to it, we refuse to see anything outside of "Christianity." We use doctrines and cute anecdotes about how businesses train cashiers to detect false currency by making them memorize "the true currency" to mask judgement and division as "discernment."

What if God really were alive and at work in our every circumstance to draw us closer to Himself? In that world, could I not learn meditation tips from a Buddhist, morality from the Quran, orthodoxy from a "universalist"? Our main question shouldn't be "where is this situation in relation to God?", but rather "where is God working in this situation and how can I partake?".

Troy

Lane Fusilier

Brian is using the same broad brush that he accuses others of using. I am curious about what he believes, I have no need to know whether he is "right" or not. I want to be challenged in my thinking and in my faith, as many who read this blog do. It's enough to say to those seeking boundary definitions that "this is not about that" and move to the point of paradigm-shifting.

I get the idea of "provocative ambiguity" and understand the usefulness of that; that does not address the question of 'what is it that you do believe?' We all need to hear and interact with hard questions, Brian often provides such. If this is to be constructive, though, it will need more transparency, less fearfulness. If Brian has moved away from evangelical understandings and wants others to join him there, he would certainly be more persuasive with greater clarity. If he can't be clear, then he probably doesn't fully understand what he says he believes.

Brian seems quite confused about the history of the church. One of the "radical" aspects of that group was their violent reaction to the other reformers.

Syncretism is not the goal; why would Brian not explain that he is not seeking syncretism (though I would argue that he has clearly written so) by accusing the Church of syncretism (so if others can do it, I can do it?). That charge against him must be responded to more clearly.

Scot was right finally to press him, Brian did not respond clearly. His thinking is muddy.

As with much of Brian's writing, here he seems to confuse ambiguity with profundity. His work is not profound, merely confused. Perhaps he could help us all (as he clearly wishes to) by spending more time with Scot, to the point where he might articulate what he does think.

Lane

Troy Konicki

Lane, I agree that Brian dodged several questions in this interview. However, I don't think muddiness should be taboo. What's wrong with being in your 50's and still not really knowing exactly "where you stand"?

I think Brian did answer the question of "Am I a Universalist?". He answered by saying that he wasn't, but that he didn't know exactly what "group" he fit in with. Maybe he answered with ambiguity because he believes that it is an ambiguous topic. I know that it's not a satisfying answer, but it is an answer.

I think ambiguity is hard to deal with, especially when we, as Christians, are charged with holding to the "true doctrine" and not straying from the "narrow path", but I feel as though the alternative is far worse. The alternative is a silence, a fear, dismissal of true feelings in exchange for the numbness of conformity.

I know I'm going with the presupposition that Brian is being authentic in his doubts and ambiguous beliefs, but he hasn't yet convinced me otherwise. In fact, "A Generous Orthodoxy" outlined several beliefs that he holds to....the core of which is a loving, doubt-quelling Christ.

Dylan

@Troy it seems you are speaking as if you are a universalist. If that is the case, you are getting away from the core of what we believe: That Jesus Christ is the true way to God. You can't get around it. I know it's politically incorrect and society does not accept that, but it is what it is. I'm all for having an open mind and being progressive, but at what cost? You said two things that raise some red flags: "What if Brian were an atheist? Would this change the truth of his claims? I feel as if we are so ready to talk about "common grace" and about the beauty of God's creation...but, when it really comes down to it, we refuse to see anything outside of "Christianity."// "In that world, could I not learn meditation tips from a Buddhist, morality from the Quran, orthodoxy from a "universalist"? I think your on dangerous ground my friend. Let's not sacrifice our core beliefs for the sake of being open minded or relevant.

Rich in Texas

It seems like we are almost hesitant to speak of salvation because of the divide it creates, i.e. the impression that there are two groups: the have's and the have not's.

Aren't we all just jockeying for position as one of the have's? The irony is that the very act of jockeying moves us further away from where God wants us to be. Is that what Brian is trying to get at? If so I agree. We can stop fretting over who's in and who's out. That's been taken care of.

What would give me heartburn, however, would be the idea that Black-theology, Eco-theology, Latino-theology or any other "ology" now has the right to claim pole-position. Or, that these agenda-driven movements now supplant our need to develop relationship with God. When does the jockeying stop? New inquisitor, same Inquisition. Brian talks about the Gospel being co-opted by one group, but sets the stage for it being co-opted by the next in line.

The Gospel should always be about our personal response to God's unmerited Grace. Period. This response will never be measured with accuracy on this side of the grave. Double-period. It seems as if Brian is unwilling to see the "traditional church" in a mature light - that we strive to be mature disciples that are wooed by The Great Lover: Able to accept unwarranted salvation AND willing to love the unsaved. Will we be imperfect? Of course, but this "chip" on his shoulder makes it far too easy for him to dismiss the shortcomings of these other-than-orthodoxy views; these possible Inquisitors-in-waiting...

Troy Konicki

I appreciate your concern, Dylan, and I completely agree with you. I, personally, tend more towards doubt and questions than towards acceptance and conformity and, as such, have begged God to keep me straight. I have no desire to be a universalist or, for that matter, an atheist, Buddhist or Muslim. Instead, I desire to follow Christ and join Him in restoration and I believe He is the only hope for all of creation, the spring from which all Truth flows.

I believe that there is evil and that it masquerades as light and truth. That, in seeking one's own extents of human logic, one risks trading it for God's truth and sovereignty. However, I don't want the fear of "losing the truth" to keep me from seeking God out and asking hard questions, challenging norms and paradigms.

The goal isn't relevance or progressivism, but rather my own sanity and walk with God. I don't wish to understand an atheist's worldview and validate it so that I can be more accepting, trendy and PC....but because I want to understand their journey and what God may want me to see in them.

What's the difference between a person before they are "saved" and after? Certainly they know God more fully and they see situations with new eyes....they are, by many standards, now granted passage into heaven eternally. But, does God only start working in their life after they walk the aisle or was he working all along and their "conversion experience" was just a step along the way? If faith is a journey and God is working in all of creation to restore it to Himself, then why should I not validate many of the truth claims of an atheist (who may later, more officially, become a Christian)? Why should I not see all people as equally worthy of my attention, respect and understanding?

This doesn't validate universalism, because there still will be millions upon millions that will never answer the call of Christ and activate His redemption in their lives. (Scripture seems to be clear that many will enter a Gahenna, that many will be blotted out of the Book of Life, that many will turn to evil) But it does validate a non-binary, non-linear, non-divisive view of creation.

Troy Konicki

I agree, Rich. Advocating any 1 thing over another in this sense is just prolonging the bad cycle.

Dylan

Well put Troy. I seem to understand your position more clearly now.

Jonathan Merritt

Rich in Texas,

What are your thoughts about specialized forms of theology (feminist theology, black theology, etc.)? Are these helpful disciplines in your opinion?

Jm

Rich in Texas

@ Jonathan:

My take on "specialized" forms of theology is simply: I don't see the point. I am Hispanic, but I have never been drawn to the pursuit of latino/liberation theology as a means to: 1. develop and maintain communion with God, and 2. love my neighbor. The Gospel already teaches this, so "specialized" theology is redundant at best and agenda-driven at worst.

Liberation theology's motivation appears cloudy. Even as it strives to do good works through service to the economically poor or underpriviledged, these works appear more the result of "political activation" than "Spirit manifestation". Also, while liberation theology defines the "poor" as the socio-economic underpriveledged, I believe these biblical references have more to do with one's attitude towards God. In fact, liberation almost smacks of "Prosperity". Where the primary focus is materialism or the lack of.

My understanding of liberation theology is that it seeks to rescue the individual from an oppressive social, political heirarchy - it's a lifting-out-of, a certain class or social status. Its motivation appears more political than anything else, and in our walk, motivation is everything. I would not want to confuse "good works" with the "good things I do". So in this sense, any diciplines I engage in to effect social change might make me a champion of the people, but they do not make me holy. That is my biggest concern with specialized theology, it substitutes pursuit of the holy for pursuit of "X".

Jonathan Dunn

Well, I personally find Brian's answers to be very vague and a little patronizing. In one vein, he states that he has made a paradigm shift that he believes is correct and seems to pity others for not being there with him. However, he doesn't seem to understand his own position well enough that he can help others make the leap with him that he has already taken to see the truth that we are all missing.

It just seems to me that he wants to continue to challenge everything within his former paradigm without ever clearly nailing down what the new paradigm is. Therefore, he seems to make this a stand against the old paradigm more than a position of clarity in regards to the what the new paradigm is.

As I've heard it said before, his "feet are firmly planted in mid air." He wishes to move about as he wishes without really nailing down what is truth to stood upon.

Jason Collier

I believe Brian may be trying to express that the gospel does not carry itself out in life as clearly or definitively as it does in doctrine and creed. And, when we try to define fundamentally how the faith is ALWAYS supposed to look like when it is "rightly" played out in life we begin to naturally create an "us/them" projection. When it comes to speech we clarify a single sentence or two that express what we believe to be "true" and "good", and from there we declare those statements to be creed.

But, ideas such as "salvation" or "grace" come to play in daily life in ways much more ambiguous than a simple sentence or two can define because it is God's grace and people's hearts we are working with here.... and these are all things we as humans cannot fully or truly know or define because we are not God and do not fully understand His ways of grace. It would be great to be able to break the things of life down to a sentence or two, but I do not think that in the end this is the most helpful way of approaching the whole situation. We should be careful how we talk about our faith and also how we interact with people.

I think McLaren's concern is that the gospel become who we are as a people living for God and others here on earth instead of the Christian projection being something we are trying to "put-on" people through our defined lifestyle and form-fitting structure - because in the end God's grace alone truly is what saves people. We need to be more careful how we define and live the Christian life, and we also need to be careful how exclusive we are. Not that we accept universalism, but do we and our speech and life truly accept, love, and serve the world? Or are we trying to make the world look like us, talk like us, and act like us thinking that maybe they will get "saved" if they do that... because "salvation" is in those things, right? No, we by the Spirit show people love, acceptance, and the Christ of the Gospel, and from there the lifestyle and defined beliefs and appearance will naturally evolve. That is the concern here!

Matthew Kinniburgh

Lane earlier you made this statement

"Brian seems quite confused about the history of the church. One of the "radical" aspects of that group was their violent reaction to the other reformers."

I am just trying to make sure I have not misunderstood you here. Are you saying that the the Anabaptists (who Brian was discussing) use violence towards other reformers?

If so I think that you have the story backwards. The Anabaptists (like Mennonites and Amish) have always been fiercely non-violent. They went to their deaths at the hands of other Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, for their views.

Thanks for you comments.

Randy Heffner

I do not want to give (or not give) Brian the status of prophet, yet I do find resonance between his reception by today's religious community and Jesus' reception by His religious community. A la John 10:24, "If you are not a universalist, please tell us plainly." For some reason, even as to his identity, Jesus chose indirect communication. Jesus left us with mysteries, such as the bread and the wine as His body and blood, for which He chose to not provide definitive doctrinal exposition. He even told us to, in some way, emulate an unrighteous steward. There is very little in the way of carefully stated Christian doctrine that comes directly from the mouth of Jesus. We prefer to nail down what Jesus himself left vague. Ambiguity is uncomfortable for us because we don't really like living by faith. Certainty is much more comfortable. Humility (which I think of as sort of a state of constant correctibility) is a hard place to live. Comfortably sure of our definitive answers, we proudly know that we need no correction. Perhaps certainty is one of the things we need salvation from. Perhaps love, the foundation Jesus gave us in the two greatest commandments, is more mysterious than we realize.

Here's a perspective attributed to Simone Weil: "In the Church, considered as a social organism, the mysteries inevitably degenerate into beliefs."

Troy Konicki

Cool insight, Randy. I especially like when you said "Certainty is one of the things we need salvation from." I agree. Certainty shackles us to a sense of false integrity and dignity in which doubts and inquires translate to immaturity, discredibility and traitorism. I believe Jesus does want Christians to be freed from certainty, free to joyous abandon of it...free to journey. Not that definitions, discernment, and doctrines are bad, but that mystery is beautiful.

Rich in Texas

Mystery is beautiful, but mystery for the sake of mystery...

I like what Jonathan Dunn alludes to: some people just enjoy being on the cutting edge of discussion and the front-line of intellectualism. I'm not saying Brian is one of these, I'm just saying...

It may be too easy to criticize the prevailing paradigm, and carry its faults to the nth degree, all to support your arguement for a "better alternative". As if any paradigm could be faultless. Maybe a less "agenda-driven" alternative to the left-leaning "liberation" theology would be better received?

Randy Heffner

True enough, Rich: "mystery for the sake of mystery" is not mystery, it's obfuscation. And Jesus was certainly on "the cutting edge of discussion," yet somehow in an appropriate way. Personally, I'm not so concerned whether Brian is guilty in either of these realms, I'd rather look at the questions asked by his work and respond to the ideas and answers they spark.

Of his work, I've read only A New Kind of Christian (I realize that others of his books cause the greater part of the controversy), and one of the main questions in that book is whether our debates are centered in the right places (a la his Portland-Seattle-Florida example in this post's video). When the topic of "______ theology" comes up, the debate gets easily centered on agenda-driving, leading to God-is-on-my-side points of view that are lacking in love. What's more interesting to me, however, is that if I realize the limitations of seeing the gospel from only my own cultural milieu and mindset, a "______ theology" discussion becomes centered in how it may help me to begin to enter an alternate mindset and see other aspects of the gospel that I'd previously been blind to. The gospel is a single diamond, yet we are each limited and it is dangerous to think that ours is the one non-specialized point-of-view that comprehends all of its facets.

If Brian's later work follows the trajectory set by A New Kind of Christian, I'm thinking that this is the type of dialog it would foster. If so, perhaps Brian could be more skilled at pointing "_____ theology" discussions in such a direction, but also I believe those with ears to hear will not be easily provoked by his lack of skill, but rather enter into dialog and collaborate to find gospel beauty through the dialog. This is more important that critiquing and categorizing the individual.

Rich in Texas

@Randy:

It would seem that while the Gospel is here to pull us out of our foxholes of self-absorption, it is our own individual "mindsets" that get in the way. My goal shoudn't be to justify my mindset to the world. It should be to know and show Love. Love does not have to be defended, nor repackaged to make it more true. It is what it is. Tragically, a consequence of the fall is that we reject it (Love) most of the time. (Unless it's packaged in a way that is appealng to us...)

My critique of any form of "___" theology is that it is inherently redundant and agenda-promoting. It cheapens the Message. If the message of love is universal, it should not have to be translated into any form of "___" theology. It would seem that ears that-would-not-otherwise-hear, would never listen if not for the whispers of justification (prosperity maybe?) contained therein.

My defense is not of mainstream theology - just because a majority may do the hijacking does not make it right. My arguement is for an innocent, child-like view of the Gospel. I beilieve that is what Brian is trying to promote. As I write this, I am aware of my own self-serving mindset: That as I walk more and more this Christian road, I am aware of just how little I need Jesus. I reject Love everyday, and it's certainly not because the message hasn't been packaged into the right flavor of "___" theology. Wherever there is Love, there is crucification of that Love.

Would that we become less obsessed with making things right with our crucifiers, and simply love them because the Message is good.

Micah Witham

One thing that we should probably clarify is exactly what kind of universalist are we all talking about here?

There are two definitions here depending on who you are talking to.

Universalist option #1_essentially, all roads lead to God. It doesn't matter who you worship or what you worship, because in the end all the roads lead to the same God.

Universalist option #2_Salvation is made possible for the world in and through the work of Jesus. Jesus' death on the cross is then efficacious for all of creation regardless of their disposition towards Jesus. In essence, God in the end will bring all of creation under his rule and reign "every knee will bow and every tongue will confess."

I'm pretty sure that Brian is not option #1, he has said this very clearly and emphatically in many places.

Rob Robayna

Brian's comment at 12:10 about people wanting to know what one's view is on this or that doctrinal topic but "... nobody ever asks if they're a racist." Wow! That is a paradigm shifting question if there was ever one. Why? Because it reminds us again that you can tick all the doctrinal orthodox boxes and yet be a person who in their attitudes and behaviours is anti-God all the way down. Brings to mind the staunch predestinarians and chief supporters of slavery in the US and of apartheid in SA. Also reminds me of another group of religious people in the gospels who eventually crucified the Messiah

Teresa

I find his coments to be much like that of a philospher - who gathers bits of many types of thought, or a politician who really doesn't answer a question. In the first question at least, he "answers" by saying what he thinks readers think...not at all his beleifs. "Don't pin me down" screams through his answer. While I agree we may have some problems in where our faith or our doctrines more specifically have gone, and the us vs them thought is not good.... the church needs to love those around them. There are boundaries set down by God and Christ that he seems to want to do away with. The problem with error is there is generally some truth in it....that is what leads people away. His seems to be a pandora's box of pick and choose what you like and just go with it. We as people are not going to save the world. Liberation theology? Jesus is the great liberator....I wonder at his fundamental understanding...."salvation" in the OT is not just about getting them out of Egypt, it is in repairing the fractured relationship with God...and it isn't really about "saving" from hell...it is about getting out of the world (Egypt being a picture of the world) and how that fractured relationship was mended - through Christ....he doesn't seem to get that.

jenni ho-huan

I like Brian's honesty and how we all need to see Scripture and the Gospel with fresh eyes as well as truly sincere humble hearts. But the interview shows me he is someone on a search - and in one sense we are all on a search. with the most clarified orthodoxy, we cannot live with complete and total 'rightness'. Even if we got our ideas right, we still have the huge challenge of getting our acts right... i would therefore accord Brian the space and respect he deserves but not expect him or anyone one else to be the final prophet for us.

Edward

McLaren is a philosopher not a theologian. Does anyone see/hear/read McLaren as one seeking correct Biblical hermeneutics? I don't. He is theorizing with Biblical precepts and connotations... i.e. philosophizing. At best, McLaren gets us all defending the faith. At worst, he is damning people with a "New Kind of Religion" disguised as a pseudo enlightened all inclusive christianity (which would make him not only a heretic, but much worse). Or, perhaps he is just trying to sell books.

Rhoda Berrios

The one thing he said that makes me not really care what theological label he wears (not that I ever did) is this, "I worry that the the good news of Jesus Christ, a Jewish story, a story of people dominated by the empire...has become a tool of people with a lot of power and money and weapons." Wow, how true and how frightening is that. I agree with Lesslie Newbigin who advocated that Christians need to step back and view how our Western Culture has corrupted, invaded, and minimized the Gospel of Christ. Who cares if he's into universalism or advocating syncretism. He spoke the truth about Christianity as it has evolved in Western culture, and we should hang our heads in shame.